Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 4, pp 621–631 | Cite as

Movement and memory: different cognitive strategies are used to search for resources with different natural distributions

Original Paper

Abstract

Recent attempts to integrate function and mechanism have resulted in an appreciation of the relevance of forager psychology to understanding the functional aspects of foraging behaviour. Conversely, an acknowledgement of the functional diversity of learning mechanisms has led to greater understanding of the adaptive nature of cognition. In this paper, we present data from three experiments suggesting that noisy miner birds use different cognitive strategies when searching for foods with different distributions. When searching for nectar, an immobile, readily depleted resource, birds spontaneously attend to fine-scale spatial information and use a spatial memory-based strategy that is efficient in a novel context and largely resistant to disruptions to movement. When searching for invertebrates, a mobile, clumped and cryptic resource, birds employ a strategy whose efficiency increases with increased task familiarity, is vulnerable to disruptions to their movement and may rely more on memory for movement rules than memory for location information. Previous reports of adapted cognition have reported performance differences between species (for example, better spatial cognitive performance in storing versus non-storing birds). Ours is the first study to demonstrate that differences in cognitive strategy (as opposed to just enhanced performance) occur within a single species in different foraging contexts. As well as providing an example of how specially adapted cognitive mechanisms might work, our data further emphasise the importance of jointly considering functional and mechanistic aspects to fully understand the adaptive complexities of behaviour.

Keywords

Function Mechanism Foraging Resource distribution Search strategy Spatial cognition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Mark Wiese and Paul McDonald for assistance with husbandry and banding. We also thank three anonymous reviewers for their comments, which greatly improved the quality of the manuscript. DS was supported by a RAACE scholarship from Macquarie University.

Ethical standards

The experiments reported herein comply with the current laws of the State of New South Wales and the Commonwealth of Australia.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Balda RP, Kamil AC, Bednekoff PA, Hile AG (1997) Species differences in spatial memory performance on a three-dimensional task. Ethology 103:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker RD, Vestjens WJM (1984) The food of Australian birds II: Passerines. Melbourne University Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateson M, Kacelnik A (1998) Risk-sensitive foraging: decision making in variable environments. In: Dukas R (ed) Cognitive ecology: the evolutionary ecology of information processing and decision making. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 297–341Google Scholar
  4. Burke D, Fulham BJ (2003) An evolved spatial memory bias in a nectar-feeding bird? Anim Behav 66:695–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole S, Hainsworth FR, Kamil AC, Mercier T, Wolf LL (1982) Spatial-learning as an adaptation in hummingbirds. Science 217:655–657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crespi LP (1942) Quantitative variation of incentive and performance in the white rat. Am J Psychol 55:467–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dall SRX, Giraldeau LA, Olsson O, McNamara JM, Stephens DW (2005) Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 20:187–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Demas GE, Brown MF (1995) Honey-bees are predisposed to win-shift but can learn to win-stay. Anim Behav 50:1041–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dubreuil D, Tixier C, Dutrieux G, Edeline JM (2003) Does the radial arm maze necessarily test spatial memory? Neurobiol Learn Mem 79:109–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dow DD (1977) Indiscriminate interspecific aggression leading to almost sole occupancy of space by a single species of bird. Emu 77:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flaherty CF, Blitzer R, Collier GH (1978) Open-field behaviours elicited by reward reduction. Am J Psychol 91:429–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freidin E, Aw J, Kacelnik A (2009a) Sequential and simultaneous choices: testing the diet selection and sequential choice models. Behav Process 80:218–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freidin E, Cuello MI, Kacelnik A (2009b) Successive negative contrast in a bird: Starling’s behaviour after unpredictable negative changes in food quality. Anim Behav 77:857–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibbon J (1977) Scalar expectancy theory and Weber’s law in animal timing. Psychol Rev 84:279–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibson B, Kamil AC (2009) The synthetic approach to the study of spatial memory: have we properly addressed Tinbergen’s “four questions”? Behav Process 80:278–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Healy SD, Hurly TA (1995) Spatial memory in rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus)—a field test. Anim Learn Behav 23:63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henderson J, Hurly TA, Healy SD (2001) Rufous hummingbirds’ memory for flower location. Anim Behav 61:981–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henderson J, Hurly TA, Bateson M, Healy SD (2006) Timing in free-living rufous hummingbirds, Selasphorus rufus. Curr Biol 16:512–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hurly TA (1996) Spatial memory in rufous hummingbirds: memory for rewarded and non-rewarded sites. Anim Behav 51:177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hurly TA, Healy SD (1996) Memory for flowers in rufous hummingbirds: location or local visual cues? Anim Behav 51:1149–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kacelnik A, Brunner D (2002) Timing and foraging: Gibbon’s scalar expectancy theory and optimal patch exploitation. Learn Motiv 33:177–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kacelnik A, Brunner D, Gibbon J (1990) Timing mechanisms in optimal foraging: some applications of scalar expectancy theory. In: Hughes RN (ed) NATO ASI Series, Series G, ecological sciences, behavioural mechanisms of food selection G20. Springer, Berlin, pp 61–81Google Scholar
  23. Kamil AC (1983) Optimal foraging theory and the psychology of learning. Am Zool 23:291–302Google Scholar
  24. McGregor A, Healy SD (1999) Spatial accuracy in food-storing and nonstoring birds. Anim Behav 58:727–734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McNamara JM, Houston AI (2009) Integrating function and mechanism. Trends Ecol Evol 24:670–675. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.05.011 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Müller M, Wehner R (1988) Path integration in desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis. P Natl Acad Sci USA 85:5287–5290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Olton DS, Samuelson RJ (1976) Remembrance of places passed: spatial memory in rats. J Exp Psychol: Anim B 2:97–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pecoraro NC, Timberlake WD, Tinsley M (1999) Incentive downshifts evoke search repertoires in rats. J Exp Psychol: Anim B 25:153–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pyke GH (1984) Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:523–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sastre A, Lin JY, Reilly S (2005) Failure to obtain instrumental successive negative contrast in tasks that support consummatory successive negative contrast. Int J Comp Psychol 18:307–319Google Scholar
  31. Shettleworth SJ (1993) Where is the comparison in comparative cognition? Alternative research programs. Psychol Sci 4:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shettleworth SJ (1998) Cognition, evolution and behavior. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith JNM (1974) The food searching behaviour of two European thrushes, II: the adaptiveness of the search patterns. Behaviour 49:1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sulikowski D, Burke D (2007) Food-specific spatial memory biases in an omnivorous bird. Biol Lett 3:245–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sulikowski D, Burke D (2009) Reward type influences performance and search structure of an omnivorous bird in an open-field maze. Behav Process 83:31–35. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2009.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Timberlake W (1993) Behavior systems and reinforcement: an integrative approach. J Exp Anal Behav 60:105–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wunderle JM, Martinez JS (1987) Spatial-learning in the nectarivorous bananaquit—juveniles versus adults. Anim Behav 35:652–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ydenberg RC (1998) Behavioral decisions about foraging and predator avoidance. In: Dukas R (ed) Cognitive ecology: the evolutionary ecology of information processing and decision making. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 343–378Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Brain, Behaviour and EvolutionMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of NewcastleOurimbahAustralia

Personalised recommendations